Michael Crabtree

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, just for the sake of accuracy, I never 'conceded' that Crabtree had shown improvement over the second half of the season; for, in order for such a statement to be truthful I would have had to at some point argued to the contrary and I have never once argued otherwise.

However, and despite Crabtree's excellent second half of the 2011 season my comments regarding his career performance are correct and accurate.

As for his postseason performance, I don't think this "he disappeared in the postseason and now we should cut him" is a bandwagon at all, when combined with his overall career performance and his attitudes I think it is a valid sentiment.

Furthermore, now that we are a playoff team, if his disappearance in the postseason was as bad as some have indicated and was due mostly to a lack of effort and/or ability on his part, then I would assume with some degree of certainty, that this sentiment is a legitimate threat as well.

Concede: "To acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly." You don't think Crabtree is a good player. When you acknowledged he has improved, you did so grudgingly IMO. As such, you conceded the point.

Semantics aside, you have just said (again) that Crabtree had an excellent second half of 2011. If that's the case, what level that was higher than "excellent" has he regressed from?

 

[MW49ers5]

Concede: "To acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly." You don't think Crabtree is a good player. When you acknowledged he has improved, you did so grudgingly IMO. As such, you conceded the point.

Semantics aside, you have just said Crabtree had an excellent second half of 2011. If that's the case, what level that was higher than "excellent" did he regress from?

When?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

When?

You tell me. You're the one who said "Crabtree has stagnated or even regressed." What time frame did you have in mind when you made that statement?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

When?

Ah, realize now you were referring to the bolded part of my post. When you said Crabtree had an excellent second half of 2011, I believe you said it grudgingly. You've said it a couple times. Every time you said it, I felt it was somewhat grudging. If it wasn't, feel free to substitute the term "acknowledge" or "admit" or "allow" or whatever other word you find less objectionable and respond to the question posed.

 

[MW49ers5]

Concede: "To acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly." You don't think Crabtree is a good player. When you acknowledged he has improved, you did so grudgingly IMO. As such, you conceded the point.

Semantics aside, you have just said (again) that Crabtree had an excellent second half of 2011. If that's the case, what level that was higher than "excellent" has he regressed from?

When and where did I ever grudgingly or hesitantly acknowledge Crabtree's second half improvement?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

When and where did I ever grudgingly or hesitantly acknowledge Crabtree's second half improvement?

You admit that you acknowledged his improvement. My opinion is that your acknowledgment was grudging. If it wasn't, I retract the use of of the word "concede."

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I think you were about to let us know what level that was apparently above "excellent" Crabtree has "regressed" from.

 

[MW49ers5]

You admit that you acknowledged his improvement. My opinion is that your acknowledgment was grudging. If it wasn't, I retract the use of of the word "concede."

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I think you about to let us know what level that was apparently above "excellent" Crabtree has "regressed" from.

Crimson, not only was my acknowledgement not grudging but in other threads it has been quite boastful. I appreciate your conceding that your interpretation was incorrect - thank you.

"However, and despite Crabtree's excellent second half of the 2011 season my comments regarding his career performance are correct and accurate."

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Crimson, not only was my acknowledgement not grudging but in other threads it has been quite boastful. I appreciate your conceding that your interpretation was incorrect - thank you.

"However, and despite Crabtree's excellent second half of the 2011 season my comments regarding his career performance are correct and accurate."

Ok, great. I misread your tone and meaning. My bad.

So what level has Crabtree regressed from? Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you?

 

[MW49ers5]

Ok, great. I misread your tone and meaning. My bad.

So what level has Crabtree regressed from? Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from you?

Your use of the word level was confusing - sorry 'bout that. I think Crabtree's performance and or production has either stagnated or regressed from his rookie season. All things considered, I thought his rookie season was his best...

 

[Crimsoncrew]

By the way, do you really believe Crabtree was excellent in the second half of 2011? I'd give him good, maybe even quite good, but not excellent. If you really think he was excellent, why do you want to get rid of him?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Your use of the word level was confusing - sorry 'bout that. I think Crabtree's performance and or production has either stagnated or regressed from his rookie season. All things considered, I thought his rookie season was his best...

So he was better than excellent as a rookie? I just don't see it.

He was a revelation initially in his rookie season when he made an immediate impact despite missing camp and the first several weeks of the season. I suppose you could fairly say he was excellent for a rookie. But I don't think he was nearly as good an all-around player as a rookie as he is now. I would say he was "better" compared to expectation levels as a rookie, but has improved in terms of his overall play even if he has fallen well shy of the level of expectation.

 

[MW49ers5]

So he was better than excellent as a rookie? I just don't see it.

He was a revelation initially when he made an immediate impact despite missing camp and the first several weeks of the season. I suppose you could fairly say he was excellent for a rookie. But I don't think he was nearly as good an all-around player as a rookie as he is now. I would say he was "better" compared to expectation levels as a rookie, but has improved in terms of his overall play even if he has fallen well shy of the level of expectation.

All things considered (no training camp, no play book, etc) I thought he did perform excellent in his rookie campaign.

His 2010 performance was inconsistent at best. Producing like Fitzgerald with Troy and then like my grandmother with Alex. Overall, his 2010 campaign was measurably worse than his 2009. And when you consider he should have been measurable better than 2009 then that was regression. 2010 was more bad than good.

This year is a tale of three stories. 1st half, no thanks! - Second half, yes please! - playoffs, no thanks!

So when you add it all up and you bounce his 2010, his 2011 and yes his 2011 playoffs against his 2009 season, then, IMO, my comment that he has either stagnated or regressed since his rookie campaign is accurate.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

All things considered (no training camp, no play book, etc) I thought he did perform excellent in his rookie campaign.

His 2010 performance was inconsistent at best. Producing like Fitzgerald with Troy and then like my grandmother with Alex. Overall, his 2010 campaign was measurably worse than his 2009. And when you consider he should have been measurable better than 2009 then that was regression. 2010 was more bad than good.

This year is a tale of three stories. 1st half, no thanks! - Second half, yes please! - playoffs, no thanks!

So when you add it all up and you bounce his 2010, his 2011 and yes his 2011 playoffs against his 2009 season, then, IMO, my comment that he has either stagnated or regressed since his rookie campaign is accurate.

Ok. When qualified that way, I suppose it's a reasonable argument. Though I think qualifying it at all indicates that "regression" isn't accurate. Perhaps it's more along the lines that he didn't improve at the expected rate.

As for this season, I think it's pretty clear the injury was affecting him early on. He only played one half of the opener, then missed the Dallas game. Only in week four did he seem mostly right physically. People have talked about his numbers in the second half of the season (averaged 70 yards/game, good for 1120 yards over 16 games). But if we just consider his performance from game four on, his numbers are basically the same (averaged 64 yards/game, 1024 extrapolated). There's no doubt he struggled more with drops early in the season, but those struggles never really disappeared. I think you're discounting an injury that was legitimately hampering him early on.

 

[MW49ers5]

Ok. When qualified that way, I suppose it's a reasonable argument. Though I think qualifying it at all indicates that "regression" isn't accurate. Perhaps it's more along the lines that he didn't improve at the expected rate.

As for this season, I think it's pretty clear the injury was affecting him early on. He only played one half of the opener, then missed the Dallas game. Only in week four did he seem mostly right physically. People have talked about his numbers in the second half of the season (averaged 70 yards/game, good for 1120 yards over 16 games). But if we just consider his performance from game four on, his numbers are basically the same (averaged 64 yards/game, 1024 extrapolated). There's no doubt he struggled more with drops early in the season, but those struggles never really disappeared. I think you're discounting an injury that was legitimately hampering him early on.

Your injury comment raises an interesting question...when do we stop making excuses for his injury?

Players lose their jobs all the time due to injuries. So, while I completely understand the legitimacy of your argument that his injury has hampered him personally - At what point do we stop allowing his injury to hamper the team?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Your injury comment raises an interesting question...when do we stop making excuses for his injury?

Players lose their jobs all the time due to injuries. So, while I completely understand the legitimacy of your argument that his injury has hampered him personally - At what point do we stop allowing his injury to hamper the team?

His injury hampered him for three games. After that, he was our go-to receiver and put up numbers that would result in a 1,000+ yard season. I'm excusing his performance in three games, one in which he played only a half, one in which he didn't play at all, and then his first full game back. That doesn't seem out of line. As said, from the fourth game on, with no excuses, he averaged solid numbers (64 yards/game puts him just ahead of Anquan Boldin, Stevie Johnson, and Dez Bryant).

Crabtree might have lost his job if anyone had made a serious move to take it. No one did.

 

[MW49ers5]

His injury hampered him for three games. After that, he was our go-to receiver and put up numbers that would result in a 1,000+ yard season. I'm excusing his performance in three games, one in which he played only a half, one in which he didn't play at all, and then his first full game back. That doesn't seem out of line. As said, from the fourth game on, with no excuses, he averaged solid numbers (64 yards/game puts him just ahead of Anquan Boldin, Stevie Johnson, and Dez Bryant).

Crabtree might have lost his job if anyone had made a serious move to take it. No one did.

Morgan was listed ahead of Crabtree on the depth charts and would have continued to be the starter ahead of Crabtree as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury.

If we re-sign Morgan and bring in a bonafide #1 as expected then the possibility of dumping Crabtree will be very real. If our FO truly feels that Crabtree is 'the guy' in the #2, then there would simply be no reason to sign Morgan, especially since our #3 is the 4th or 5th read in our offense and also since Williams has already shown he can produce from the #3 and is already under contract.

 

[MHSL82]

Morgan was listed ahead of Crabtree on the depth charts and would have continued to be the starter ahead of Crabtree as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury.

If we re-sign Morgan and bring in a bonafide #1 as expected then the possibility of dumping Crabtree will be very real. If our FO truly feels that Crabtree is 'the guy' in the #2, then there would simply be no reason to sign Morgan, especially since our #3 is the 4th or 5th read in our offense and also since Williams has already shown he can produce from the #3 and is already under contract.

I have NO idea and it doesn't sound like Smith would ever be vocal when it comes to personnel but I wonder if we'd bring back Morgan simply because of Alex? I'm not qualifying it as #1, #2, or #3 receiver, just back on the team.

 

[MHSL82]

Ah, realize now you were referring to the bolded part of my post. When you said Crabtree had an excellent second half of 2011, I believe you said it grudgingly. You've said it a couple times. Every time you said it, I felt it was somewhat grudging. If it wasn't, feel free to substitute the term "acknowledge" or "admit" or "allow" or whatever other word you find less objectionable and respond to the question posed.

This sounds like a mix between Seinfeld and Mad About You. That might go over most heads, but if you watch both of those series, they turn words like this, almost in a way if it were in real life it would be annoying.

 

[MHSL82]

Crimson, just for the sake of accuracy, I never 'conceded' that Crabtree had shown improvement over the second half of the season; for, in order for such a statement to be truthful I would have had to at some point argued to the contrary and I have never once stated otherwise.

However, and despite Crabtree's excellent second half of the 2011 season my comments regarding his career performance are correct and accurate.

As for his postseason performance, I don't think this "he disappeared in the postseason so we should cut him" is a bandwagon at all. When combined with his overall career performance and his attitudes I think it is a valid sentiment.

Furthermore, now that we are a playoff team, if his disappearance in the postseason was as bad as some have indicated and was due mostly to a lack of effort and/or ability on his part, then I would assume with some degree of certainty, that this sentiment is a legitimate threat as well.

This might not be related to the post I quoted, but it sounded close enough.

I've given Crabtree the benefit of the doubt too many times, whether it comes from post game interviews, offseason interviews, body language on the field, denial of his drops, etc. to think that his problem with gaining chemistry with Alex is ever going to get good enough to play like an NFL #1 receiver. Some, if not most, say Alex is not a #1 QB, but it seems when you have no control over who's your QB, you'd work harder to build the chemistry. Now, I beleive he does work hard to learn the playbook, keep in great shape, and to catch the ball, but it's just too much of a disconnect to be optimistic. As some may know, I am one of the LAST people to count anyone out, so it's possible.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Morgan was listed ahead of Crabtree on the depth charts and would have continued to be the starter ahead of Crabtree as long as his performance remained at the level it was at the time of his injury.

If we re-sign Morgan and bring in a bonafide #1 as expected then the possibility of dumping Crabtree will be very real. If our FO truly feels that Crabtree is 'the guy' in the #2, then there would simply be no reason to sign Morgan, especially since our #3 is the 4th or 5th read in our offense and also since Williams has already shown he can produce from the #3 and is already under contract.

It's convenient you've picked Morgan's performance "at the time of his injury." What about his performance in the first three games? Even with two strong games prior to injury, Morgan still only averaged 44 yards/game in his five games. That's well below Crabtree's performance, even with the "excuse" of the injury.

I like Morgan and I think this offense is a good fit for him, but he has never put more than two good games together. Especially coming of an injury, I'm not terribly convinced he will do so, especially early in the season.

You may be right about Morgan and Crabtree. Certainly Morgan's personality is the better fit for the Niners at present. Crabtree has shown a lot more on the field IMO, but I guess we'll see what the FO thinks in a few months.